Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would not presume to offer such an illustrious audience as this the
last word on the new world order of which President Bush spoke in
September 1990 when the Gulf Crisis was building up. Some have spoken of
the end of history, as though the new world order was already in place;
others think this is an illusion and prefer to speak of the new world
disorder. Both camps fail to recognize that devising a new system of
international relations will take a long time, especially after a forty-
year ice age.
The old world was organized around two forces working for integration -
ideology was one of them and the nuclear deterrent was the other. The
new world is looking for new approaches and new frameworks. The
situation is no longer as clear as it was, now that our options are wide
open again. But that should not make us unduly pessimistic, for in a
world that is moving again, however chaotically, there is the prospect of
a climate of hope that was virtually inconceivable in the Cold War era.
Growing interdependence - problems and questions
The interdependence of the world's nations seems somehow inevitable,
though it must evolve in an orderly fashion; the reality is there, but
we have not yet grasped it fully enough to devise the principles and
rules of the new international game. Perhaps the simple fact is that we
are at the beginning of an evolutionary trend. Well, events will not
wait for us; we must be ready with our response.
Talk of the interdependence of our national economies is now commonplace.
You know what I mean - world trade is expanding rapidly, faster than
production itself; financial markets are growing more closely
integrated, thanks to information technology and deregulation; business
strategies are devised in an international perspective, with direct
foreign investment growing at an annual rate of 34% in the 1980s and
international sales within firms in the same groups representing 40% of
all world trade. Today many economists speak of the transition to a new
stage - a quantum leap to a worldwide single market. There is plenty of
evidence of this; the international credit card in the consumer's wallet
is particularly symbolic.
The globalization of difficulties is a no less obvious underlying trend:
the frontiers are coming down and we must work together. We all realize
that the developed world needs the Third World's help with a number of
parameters that rank high on the political agenda - demographic pressure,
degradation of the environment, nuclear proliferation and overarmament,
the drug trade, organized crime and AIDS are the names of the game.
The global dissemination of information means that ideas can circulate
and public opinion can adopt a common way of thinking to such an extent
as to justify talk of a universal conscience. The oppressors will go on
oppressing, of course, the victims of persecution will continue to flee,
and as barriers come down in one place they will spring up in another.
But it is more and more difficult to remain ignorant or indifferent;
hypocrisy and impunity are under attack. International apathy about
human rights violations will not be able to hide behind the pretext of
immutable, inviolable national sovereignty much longer. In all the
debates going on now, the moral duty to come to the assistance of peoples
whose very life is threatened is regularly brought to the fore; despite
difficulties of implementation, it might well become a legal duty.
There is a downside to this relatively optimistic vision, one which
focuses on the limitations, the ambiguities, the fragility of the
familiar trends which I have just described.
Limitations not least because economic integration remains primarily the
preserve of the Community, the United States and Japan. These Big Three
of the international economy represent only 13.5% of the world's
population, even if they do account at the moment for two thirds of its
output. For some the alternative scenario to integration is
fragmentation; they would refer to that part of the developing world
where the demographic change is slow to emerge, where the process of
economically catching up has ground to a halt, where revolutionary
ideologies are far from dead and buried. At a time when there is so much
talk of the "global village" it is surely paradoxical that part of the
southern world seems almost to be removing itself from history, closing
the door, hostile to penetration from outside.
Limitations also to the birth of what I have called the "universal
conscience". The information explosion, the development of the open
economy, the spread of democracy, do not prevent us taking very different
roads. Far from it. The upsurge in fundamentalisms provides the most
striking example.
For the rapid globalization of the economy is also a source of anxiety to
peoples keen to strengthen their sense of belonging to communities with
which they identify, on which they have a hold. In extreme cases - so
much in evidence - claims and counterclaims can cause conflict between
peoples who have long lived side by side. And the problem here is
serious, because the right to self-determination is just as important a
principle today with the throwing-off of the communist yoke as it was
yesterday in the days of decolonization.
I would add - and I will not go into detail - that economic integration,
unless it is backed by a strong political will, will not in itself
produce stronger international institutions or help create world
government. This is why, although the need for a new world order is
self-evident, our era is one of trial and error or, as the harsher
critics among us would have it, of impotence, inability to take on world
challenges.
If we are to resist the forces of fragmentation, protectionism and
exclusion, we must be more than just aware of our interdependence. We
must move on and manage it, setting common objectives and applying common
rules. Can the European Community, the product of a very different
context, born of hostility and incomprehension, provide a blueprint for
the creation of this new world order?
The European Community contribution
The Community experiment in interdependence in a common framework without
being under the domination of any one nation must be the longest-running.
It has its limitations, but it is a living process and an enriching one.
In the context of a new world order it is certainly worth observing, even
if the principles governing it cannot necessarily be reproduced.
Let us deal right away with an objection that many have considered
significant, but which will hardly stand up to close examination any
longer: that is the image of Fortress Europe, the European Community as
an economic bloc. Unlike the attempts at regional autarky in the 1930s,
the European Community has shown for a long time that it is a factor for
growth in international trade and its increasing liberalization. Our
trading partners are gradually being won over to the idea that regional
integration has a dynamic impact on all, and the European model is an
inspiration for others - witness the recent agreements concluded by the
United States, Canada and Mexico.
So, having disposed of that canard, let me come to what seems to me the
most interesting aspect for the matter at issue: the principles
governing the Community, and their relevance to the establishment of a
new world order. Thirty-five years after the European Community was set
up, I believe it is not too presumptuous to claim that it still has
something revolutionary about it, that it is something of a "laboratory"
for the management of interdependence. What are these principles? I
would pinpoint four.
The first principle may seem very remote, given the failure of the
collective memory; that is, exchanges and cooperation between peoples.
At a time when hatred, or simply ignorance and fear of others, is
troubling that part of Europe which has just emerged from the
totalitarian nightmare, let us not minimize our gratitude to the men and
women who gathered at the Hague Congress in 1948 - first among them
Sir Winston Churchill - and set their faces against any notion of
revenge, of congenital distrust between peoples. They rejected the view
that "To the victor belong the spoils" - a philosophy which had dominated
many postwar treaties, in which the germs of the next war are planted in
the peace settlement, which seek first to satisfy instincts for power and
short-term interests. The founding fathers of Europe had the wisdom to
set our countries on a path of solidarity and cooperation which would
seem to make any return to the old demons impossible. Our peoples have
learned to know each other, to talk to each other and to appreciate each
other; this is the key to everything. Naturally, it does not preclude
differences of opinion and arguments, but in the final analysis there is
a determination to work out positive compromises.
Second principle: the control of economic interdependence. There are
three aspects to this in the Community. First of all there is
competition, which stimulates: the approach of the single market, to
which firms have reacted well in advance, has revived national economies
which were in relative decline; mentalities are changing, the stage is
set for keener competition, a more open attitude to the outside world.
Then there is cooperation, which strengthens: examples are research
policy, which should be closer to our firms, training and redeployment in
industries faced with far-reaching change, and the development of
infrastructure networks. Finally there is solidarity, which brings us
closer together: this is embodied in the policy of economic and social
cohesion, which is designed to give each region a real chance and sets us
on a growth path which will be beneficial to all. Competition,
cooperation, solidarity: these are the three inseparable aspects of the
organization of Europe, the management of interdependence in this
continent of ours. In other words, a positive-sum game.
Third principle: the importance of the law, which ensures that the rules
are accepted by all the players, so avoiding diktats and the domination
of one state over the others. Each member country, whatever its size or
strength, can say its piece and make its contribution to the common
venture. The European Community is a community governed by law, where
the Court of Justice plays an essential role, and where one of the
Commission's duties is to see that the rules are observed by all. Hence
the emergence of a political entity which is not easy to classify, where
sovereignty can be limited, shared or combined, depending on
circumstances; and it is because the rule of law is observed that the
Community can be managed jointly, in confidence and transparency.
Finally, the fourth principle: the need for an effective decision-making
process. This is because, without strong institutions, the will to
cooperate is by itself not sufficient: the institutional set-up must be
such that we are forced to achieve results, i.e. to take decisions and
act. To my mind the authors of the Treaty of Rome made a fundamental
innovation in giving the Community a memory enabling it to act and a
decision-making system enabling it to go beyond the limits so often
encountered by conventional international organizations.
But can these four principles, which make for the solidity of the
European Community, be transposed for the construction of a world order?
Are they sufficient to make the Community a strong and stable constituent
part of that order? These are the two questions I would like to address
in conclusion.
Is it possible to draw conclusions from the Community experiment, the
laboratory I talked about earlier, that will help us to build a new world
order? My answer is "Yes, but". Yes, because in economic and monetary
matters the order created is infinitely more stable internally than what
went before. Yes, because the discipline deriving from common rules is
gradually penetrating our countries, and that is the sine qua non of
fruitful cooperation.
But the set-up cannot be transposed as it is. First of all because the
differences between levels of development are enormous. And then because
civilizations, our conceptions of man, nature, society and even democracy
itself, are very different. In the Community we have a great deal in
common on these points. But this is not true everywhere on our planet,
if only because democracy is still far from being the ruling principle
for everybody. And finally because giving birth to
institutions to which sovereignty is to be transferred and which are to
be given power to manage cooperation and settle disputes is a slow and
arduous process.
To convince ourselves of this we have only to think back to the woes of
the League of Nations, whose failure so marked Jean Monnet, or to measure
the progress made in recent years by the United Nations; but let us not
forget the obstacles still lying in its path. Think also of the gulf
between the hopes that were pinned on the CSCE and its achievements to
date. There is still a long way to go to make the United Nations
stronger; we should not close our eyes to the difficulties. Let us make
use of our experience, but with modesty and humility.
The contribution that the Community as such can make to the new world
order can, to use an image from the plant world, be considered something
of a hybrid, what is produced by crossing a world power with an
international organization. I have been struck by the gradual emergence
of the Community in this dual role on the international stage.
First it is an entity which is gradually equipping itself with the means
of influencing world affairs, commensurate with what unites us and the
essential common interests of the Member States. I do not doubt that the
Community will thus be contributing to a more stable and more equitable
world order, as is testified by the declarations which the Community
signed jointly with the United States in 1990 and with Japan in 1991.
It is also a mediator and arbitrator, when you think of the upheavals in
Central and Eastern Europe and the Community's role in the Yugoslav
conflict - our observers on the spot and our presence at the peace
conference today alongside the United Nations in Geneva. There is also a
support function, when you consider the interlinking of the Community's
humanitarian aid operations with those of non-governmental organizations
and UN agencies. This is a new departure which is worth thinking about
for the future, and it raises a new question: where do the rights and
duties of "interference" start and finish? The Community is perhaps in a
better position than others to give an unbiased answer to this question.
The conclusion, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that the
Community's contribution to a new world order is, like the Community
itself, something original: a method which will serve as a reference, a
body whose presence will be felt.